PIP benefits; Material misrepresentation on application; Whether a question on the application was ambiguous

Holding that the trial court correctly determined that defendant-USA Underwriters (insurer) was entitled to rescind the policy on the basis of plaintiff’s material misrepresentation, the court affirmed. “Because the intent behind the misrepresentation is irrelevant,” the issue was whether question 8 is ambiguous. “The trial court correctly read question 8 as asking whether, in the prior three years, plaintiff’s [insured] license had been revoked at any time. The fact that questions 6 and 7 ask about the current status of suspension and question 8 asks about suspension in the prior three years indicates that the subsequent question is a follow-up to its predecessors—that is, questions 6 and 7 ask whether any of the applicable individuals had their licenses currently suspended, while question 8 asks whether any of the applicable individuals had their license suspended within the last three years of the application.” The court concluded that because “the question is not ambiguous, plaintiff’s response was false and a misrepresentation. Furthermore, the misrepresentation was material because defendant’s chief underwriter attested that defendant did ‘not issue policies to individuals with known driver’s license suspensions in the three years prior to the policy application.’ Finally, in issuing the policy, defendant necessarily relied on this misrepresentation.”